8800gtx ran hotter and consumed more power then competitions, as well as ran hotter and consumed more power then DUAL GPU card.

for comparison, 480 runs cooler(38-45ish)on idle then 8800gtx, and while reviews (running early drivers/and old bios) some claim 93c load temp, my 480 didn't go over 85c yet. And most end users will confirm, 480GTX runs much cooler then reviews claimed.

now considering that you have TWO 8800GTXjust estimating, 480GTX uses about about 60ishW less on idle, and about 218ishW less on load then your 8800gtx SLI.

both reviews are from the same site.

funny how you complain about power consumption, when your current cards draw much more power, and run hotter

cough***your current ones run hotter***cough

There's a reason I'm eyeing the 5770. You think I'm unaware what these 8800's consume? It's too much. I can have better performance while consuming less power and generating more heat. I love the performance... but it's expensive to power this rig. Need to trim some fat a lil'.

Now, if nvidia had something that could actually *compete* with the 5770 I'd probably be all over it as naturally my innards have a green tint to 'em. However, they do not, so I'm left with the only option which is the 5770 atm.

And for the record I bought these cards from a member here not too far back. Didn't think I'd be so concerned about power consumption and heat output back then.

However, I did purchase two 640MB 8800GTSs on launch day... samething- wasn't concerned about power conumption/heat output back then either. I am now, cause things have changed for me.

or are you really throwing in the towel and going for a really low-end budget card?

Quote:

Conclusion

We wouldn’t claim to know everything about the new graphics card from Nvidia after testing it in only six tests, especially as driver updates can often improve the performance of modern unified-architecture graphics cards dramatically. However, it is already clear that the Nvidia GeForce GTX 465 won’t be a success in its current form. At a recommended price of $279, it is but slightly cheaper than the Radeon HD 5850 but has a lower performance, comparable to that of the GeForce GTX 275. We guess a potential buyer is more likely to add $20 to buy the more expensive product from AMD instead of the new card from Nvidia.

The GeForce GTX 465 can be faster than its potential market opponent in some games that employ advanced DirectX 11 features such as tessellation but, as the results in Colin McRae: Dirt 2 suggest, it will still feel a lack of texture sampling rate and memory bandwidth at high resolutions. We are yet to test the GeForce GTX 465 with new GeForce drivers, but we don’t think that this graphics card can do much better and prove to be worth its own price. Nvidia has found itself in the same trap as when they announced the first version of the G200 processor. Graphics cards based on that chip proved to be too expensive and unprofitable to make, too. But though Nvidia might have erred in its predictions about the performance and success of the RV770 back then, they have had the RV870 Cypress before their eyes all the time as the reference point when developing the GeForce GTX 465.

So, we can’t find any excuse for Nvidia’s having developed yet another complex and expensive monster chip instead of an inexpensive mainstream graphics core. To make the GeForce GTX 465 a market success, the developer will have to either drop its price, perhaps even losing all profits from it, or increase its frequencies, which is hardly possible considering the technologies Nvidia has at hand.

Summing up the results of our preview, the GeForce GTX 465 is not such an interesting buy as the senior models in the GeForce GTX 400 series. Its performance may be improved by a new driver and we will carry out a full test session as soon as possible. However, we do think that Nvidia will have to lower the price of its new product in order to make it competitive.

Not very promising.

Here's my situation... I'm moving into a trailer in an area which during the summer gets much hotter than where I currently live. This is why I'm so concerned about power consumption and heat- the trailer can only provide so much power, and with the increase in ambient temperatures outside I need a cooler running card.

So far, going off of that review, the GTX465 seems a failure in comparison to competing cards. Hopefully newer drivers *will* change that.

As it stands, the 5770 seems to be the sweet spot. Maybe the GTX460 could change my mind and keep me in the green camp- I don't know. Price, performance-per-watt, and heat generated are my major concerns. Would like to spend no more than $250 on the card... including shipping and tax. Can grab a HIS 5770 for $160 after MIR right this instant. It consumes very little power idle and load, runs cooler than my current setup while offering acceptable performance.

And yes, going off of the reviews the 5770 would be a bit slower than my dual 8800GTXs. I can live with that for now. After all ATi's next gen parts are really just around the corner. This 5770 could be a stop-gap for me untill the 6770 or whatever is released which I'd anticipate to hover around the 5850 - 5870 in terms of performance while consuming far less power and producing far less heat- or so I hope.

8800gtx ran hotter and consumed more power then competitions, as well as ran hotter and consumed more power then DUAL GPU card.

for comparison, 480 runs cooler(38-45ish)on idle then 8800gtx, and while reviews (running early drivers/and old bios) some claim 93c load temp, my 480 didn't go over 85c yet. And most end users will confirm, 480GTX runs much cooler then reviews claimed.

now considering that you have TWO 8800GTXjust estimating, 480GTX uses about about 60ishW less on idle, and about 218ishW less on load then your 8800gtx SLI.

both reviews are from the same site.

funny how you complain about power consumption, when your current cards draw much more power, and run hotter

cough***your current ones run hotter***cough

I had an 8800 GTX, and I absolutely loved it!

The 8800 GTX was a phenomenal product. It produced jaw dropping numbers and had an incredible feature set. Yes, for the time, it used a lot of juice and produced heat. Nvidia has always been known to push the envelope, and unfortunately, high heat and power usage is usually a product of such aspirations. You forget, though, that the 8800 GTX did NOT have a monolithic cooler on it and its fan was also nearly inaudible at full speed. The 8800 GTX did run hot, but it could afford to. The 480 GTX unfortunately runs hot and has an incredible cooling solution already on it leaving virtually no room to put a better solution on it other than WC.

I mean, are we seriously going to compare the 8800 GTX to the GTX 480? Nvidia had their ducks in a line for the 8xxx series. No one on here is going to say that the 8800 GTX wasn't an incredible piece of engineering (bar the fact that nearly all of them died in the first several years on market) However, things have changed dramatically since then. ATI now has a card in the form of the HD 5870 that is virtually twice as powerful, uses roughly the same amount of power, and gives off less heat. Nvidia, on the other hand, has a card that's also roughly twice as powerful, but it gives off an extreme amount of heat and uses a ton of power. What's wrong with this picture?

The 8800 GTX beat the 2900 XT. We all know that. During this generation, it's far closer. This GTX 490 could be a step in the right direction, or it could be a total failure. We'll have to wait and see.... and dear god I hope nvidia corrects the power/heat issues with their next gen of Fermi architecture.

for comparison, 480 runs cooler(38-45ish)on idle then 8800gtx, and while reviews (running early drivers/and old bios) some claim 93c load temp, my 480 didn't go over 85c yet. And most end users will confirm, 480GTX runs much cooler then reviews claimed.

yup my 480gtx SC hasn't got over 86c yet. that's in crysis playing for 45minutes. i have good case cooling but that's no different than my GTX280 in the same case with the same case cooling. I leave everything on auto and i'm lovin the card so far. reviews seems over blown with that and unless your room temp is 30c i'm not sure how they are getting 97c in the reviews. my 2 cents only but i don't do SLI so maybe that's the difference.

Redeemed, I haven't read through all your posts but why is power consumption a deal breaker for you on a higher end ATI/nV card?
Are you gaming 24/7? Otherwise the power consumption is not that high while idling around and I'd say most systems are idling around most of the time. Those few hours while gaming won't influence the power bill that much. You could save much more with other, more efficient hardware in a household.

Check just one post immediately above yours here.

For roughly $100 more I can have the 5850. Power consumption is not astronomically higher than the 5770, and is actually lower than the 5830, while offering *great* performance.

If you put the card in a PCI-e slot and put 2 8-pin power connectors on the card, you've got a maximum TDP of 375 watts. I don't see that as being far fetched, even though it does break the pci-e 300w maximum standard.

WOW. That's going to be riding the line then when it comes to the power that it can draw.... I wonder how these will turn out

The 8800 GTX was a phenomenal product. It produced jaw dropping numbers and had an incredible feature set. Yes, for the time, it used a lot of juice and produced heat. Nvidia has always been known to push the envelope, and unfortunately, high heat and power usage is usually a product of such aspirations. You forget, though, that the 8800 GTX did NOT have a monolithic cooler on it and its fan was also nearly inaudible at full speed. The 8800 GTX did run hot, but it could afford to. The 480 GTX unfortunately runs hot and has an incredible cooling solution already on it leaving virtually no room to put a better solution on it other than WC.

I mean, are we seriously going to compare the 8800 GTX to the GTX 480? Nvidia had their ducks in a line for the 8xxx series. No one on here is going to say that the 8800 GTX wasn't an incredible piece of engineering (bar the fact that nearly all of them died in the first several years on market) However, things have changed dramatically since then. ATI now has a card in the form of the HD 5870 that is virtually twice as powerful, uses roughly the same amount of power, and gives off less heat. Nvidia, on the other hand, has a card that's also roughly twice as powerful, but it gives off an extreme amount of heat and uses a ton of power. What's wrong with this picture?

The 8800 GTX beat the 2900 XT. We all know that. During this generation, it's far closer. This GTX 490 could be a step in the right direction, or it could be a total failure. We'll have to wait and see.... and dear god I hope nvidia corrects the power/heat issues with their next gen of Fermi architecture.

My take is that Fermi could have been another great card like the 8800GTX if it wasn't for the power and heat issues. Nvidia had to take away 32 cores and possibly go with lower clocks than they wanted to just to keep the card within the limits. Now we're talking about trying to put even more power and heat into the same place. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

in the original post I mentioned I got them from the same review site, bit-tech.

you are comparing numbers from two different sites. in your post one site claims 432, one other claims 274

So you do a little bit of math... I'm using a common denominator between configurations. You take the relative difference between a GTX 480 and GTX 260, then you do the same for the GTX 260 and 8800GTX. This way your comparing just the cards, and not the whole system. In the exact same system a GTX 480 draws 121W more than a GTX 260. (421 - 300)

An 8800GTX is drawing 18W more than a GTX 260 (432 - 414)

So subtract the 18W from 121 and you get about 100W.

The 8800GT is 173W less than the GTX 480. (421 - 248)

The 8800GTX is 81W more than an 8800GT in one test, and 65W in another.

So 173W - 81W = 92W

In both cases that puts the 8800GTX at well under 80W below the GTX 480. The reason why the numbers between bit-tech aren't going to be accurate is that the entire system that the cards are running in are completely different.

Either way using their numbers I'm still seeing 61W less than a GTX 480. That would mean that at even 200W above for SLI you'd be melting the connectors because that extra card would have to be making another 260W.